El Duque hasn't had a consistent season in a long, long time. He's had more than his share of injuries, and how old is this guy anyway?

Contreras has not done anything to prove himself at the major league level, and, oh yeah, how old is HE?

Garland--young, should improve a little bit more, but it's not likely he will turn into the ace he was projected to be early in his career.

So, as we look at it, there are really only two guys in this rotation: Buehrle and Garcia, who have had any amount of consistency at the major league level.

Should we really be so optimistic about our chances?

JUribe1989

02-07-2005, 10:52 PM

:threadblows: Don't be pessimistic

HomeFish

02-07-2005, 10:55 PM

I agree, JUribe, the reality of our situation does in fact blow.

I would, as you all know, further question the rotation, particularly Buehrle.

guillen4life13

02-07-2005, 10:56 PM

:threadblows: Don't be pessimistic

I think you should give a thread a little more time before you start saying it blows, and the thread is there to start a discussion. You're trying to kill it before it gets a chance, and I don't see anything wrong with the thread's nature--I think my question and support are all valid.

Jabroni

02-07-2005, 10:57 PM

I agree, JUribe, the reality of our situation does in fact blow.

I would, as you all know, further question the rotation, particularly Buehrle.:chickenlittle

hold2dibber

02-07-2005, 11:02 PM

Seriously, lets look at the facts here:

El Duque hasn't had a consistent season in a long, long time. He's had more than his share of injuries, and how old is this guy anyway?

Contreras has not done anything to prove himself at the major league level, and, oh yeah, how old is HE?

Garland--young, should improve a little bit more, but it's not likely he will turn into the ace he was projected to be early in his career.

So, as we look at it, there are really only two guys in this rotation: Buehrle and Garcia, who have had any amount of consistency at the major league level.

Should we really be so optimistic about our chances?

Those who have unbridled optimism for the Sox '05 rotation are delusional. The rotation has a hell of a lot of potential. But it also is riddled with question marks, as you note. El Duque has been consistently good when he's healthy, but he's old and his health is a huge question mark. Contreras, despite his flashes of briliance, had an ERA well over 5.00 last year. Garland is a very good no. 5, but if the Cubans falter the Sox will need Garland to be better than a good no. 5. Garcia also has been relatively inconsistent in his career. That's not to say that the Sox don't have a good rotation - they probably have the best in the AL Central. But the rotation has flaws, no doubt about it.

santo=dorf

02-07-2005, 11:04 PM

I think you should give a thread a little more time before you start saying it blows, and the thread is there to start a discussion. You're trying to kill it before it gets a chance, and I don't see anything wrong with the thread's nature--I think my question and support are all valid.

Or maybe you should look at both sides of the situation before posting one-sided crap. Or do a negative one-sided analysis for the other 4 rotations in the division and you'll see why so many of us are excited about our rotation. I already did one on the Twins rotation, and to my surprise, not a single one of the pessimists on this board tried to argue against my bias against the Twins rotation.

:threadsucks

Jjav829

02-07-2005, 11:04 PM

Maybe. I know, great answer. But the truth is we don't know. We're all optimistic because of the change, but really we have no idea how good this team is. I think some people are setting themselves up for a big letdown. I'm seeing some people say the Sox have one of the best rotations in baseball. That's a little overboard. I know, I know, Jon Garland is one of the best #5's in baseball. But that's just a title. We can label Garland the #5 and make the rotation seem great, but is he really the 5th best pitcher when you take into consideration health and performance? Buehrle and Freddy are the #1 and #2 and that's fine. But are El Duque and Contreras really better than Garland? Contreras had a 5.50 ERA last year, and that was lowered because he posted a 5.30 ERA with the Sox. That's brutal. He has a lot to show. By no means has he proven himself better than Jon Garland. El Duque had a good year last year, but he only pitched 84 innings. He pitched 146 the year before and 94 the year before that. It is very likely that at some point this year he will make a visit to the DL, meaning the return of an unproven starter.

It's nice to have 5 starters, but let's not mistake actually filling out a whole rotation for having a great rotation.

SOX ADDICT '73

02-07-2005, 11:06 PM

Disclaimer: I'm exposing myself as a total stat-geek with way too much time on my hands, and I also realize what I'm about to share is absolutely meaningless information, so don't get on my case.

I decided to see what the Sox record would have been last year if the starting rotation for the coming season had been on the team all of 2004, and had put up the same numbers for the Sox as they did for their respective clubs. I was mainly trying to see what the difference might be with Garland in the five-spot. I had to extrapolate the numbers a bit, using winning percentages, since this year's starting staff didn't have as many overall decisions in 2004 as last year's. Even factoring in Garcia's 4-7 start with Seattle, and taking away Loaiza's decent record with the Sox, the difference in wins was NINE, the exact deficit by which we lost the division. And when you factor in Koch's blown saves...

guillen4life13

02-07-2005, 11:07 PM

Those who have unbridled optimism for the Sox '05 rotation are delusional. The rotation has a hell of a lot of potential. But it also is riddled with question marks, as you note. El Duque has been consistently good when he's healthy, but he's old and his health is a huge question mark. Contreras, despite his flashes of briliance, had an ERA well over 5.00 last year. Garland is a very good no. 5, but if the Cubans falter the Sox will need Garland to be better than a good no. 5. Garcia also has been relatively inconsistent in his career. That's not to say that the Sox don't have a good rotation - they probably have the best in the AL Central. But the rotation has flaws, no doubt about it.

Agreed. That's pretty much what I'm saying. If everything clicks on all cylinders, then the Sox rotation is awesome. Unfortunately, that may be asking a lot. I honestly don't have the faith and optimism in guys like Contreras and Duque being 3/4 starters on this team. They both have the potential to do this with flying colors--hell, they both have the potential to be 1-2 starters in their own right. However, potential means much less when the player is as old as these guys' reported ages are.

I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic, but I am trying to get some of the blind optimists to see that this deal ain't sealed yet and there are question marks. I'm not saying the rotation or team is gonna suck. I'm just saying that this rotation has its share of problems that may or may not work themselves out. I'm leaning towards the "may not" end of things because this just seems more realistic based on the histories of these players.

chisoxmike

02-07-2005, 11:07 PM

Maybe. I know, great answer. But the truth is we don't know. We're all optimistic because of the change, but really we have no idea how good this team is. I think some people are setting themselves up for a big letdown. I'm seeing some people say the Sox have one of the best rotations in baseball. That's a little overboard. I know, I know, Jon Garland is one of the best #5's in baseball. But that's just a title. We can label Garland the #5 and make the rotation seem great, but is he really the 5th best pitcher when you take into consideration health and performance? Buehrle and Freddy are the #1 and #2 and that's fine. But are El Duque and Contreras really better than Garland? Contreras had a 5.50 ERA last year, and that was lowered because he posted a 5.30 ERA with the Sox. That's brutal. He has a lot to show. By no means has he proven himself better than Jon Garland. El Duque had a good year last year, but he only pitched 84 innings. He pitched 146 the year before and 94 the year before that. It is very likely that at some point this year he will make a visit to the DL, meaning the return of an unproven starter.

It's nice to have 5 starters, but let's not mistake actually filling out a whole rotation for having a great rotation.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

santo=dorf

02-07-2005, 11:10 PM

But are El Duque and Contreras really better than Garland? Contreras had a 5.50 ERA last year, and that was lowered because he posted a 5.30 ERA with the Sox. That's brutal. He has a lot to show. By no means has he proven himself better than Jon Garland.

I think Contreras is better than Garland. He had some really bad outings that inflated his ERA. He won 5 games in two months with the Sox, and could've easily won 6 if it weren't for lazy defense on the part of Timo and Everett with a blown save from Damaso Marte. How many wins does that translate over an entire season?

Contreras had 3 rough outings with the Sox and a total of 9 on the year. Garland had 9 rough outings as well (one of which was a victory against the Twins) and after an impressive 2 months, Garland pretty much went 6 IP, 4 ER if he wasn't getting tattooed.

NSSoxFan

02-07-2005, 11:12 PM

You know what? I wish the season would just start, so all these kinds of threads can just be answered. As far as our pitching staff goes, if you think our staff in 2000 was anywhere as good as the staff we have going into this year, you are on some good stuff.

Jjav829

02-07-2005, 11:16 PM

I think Contreras is better than Garland. He had some really bad outings that inflated his ERA. He won 5 games in two months with the Sox, and could've easily won 6 if it weren't for lazy defense on the part of Timo and Everett with a blown save from Damaso Marte. How many wins does that translate over an entire season?

Contreras had 3 rough outings with the Sox and a total of 9 on the year. Garland had 9 rough outings as well (one of which was a victory against the Twins) and after an impressive 2 months, Garland pretty much went 6 IP, 4 ER if he wasn't getting tattooed.

That's great. All the numbers would seem to indicate he should be a good pitcher, at least better than Garland. Yet he still posted an ERA over 5. Plain and simple, that's not going to cut it. Contreras has two very good pitches, but he still hasn't learned to effectively use those pitches. He has shown no willingness to adjust and work with Cooper. And he's 33, possibly 35, so when is it going to click? Maybe this is the year, but that's certainly no sure thing. If you're basing the success of your rotation on a 33-year-old pitcher coming off a season with a 5.00 ERA suddenly turning it around, that's a little scary. I certainly hope he does it, but he's not a certainty.

santo=dorf

02-07-2005, 11:22 PM

That's great. All the numbers would seem to indicate he should be a good pitcher, at least better than Garland. Yet he still posted an ERA over 5. Plain and simple, that's not going to cut it. Contreras has two very good pitches, but he still hasn't learned to effectively use those pitches. He has shown no willingness to adjust and work with Cooper. And he's 33, possibly 35, so when is it going to click? Maybe this is the year, but that's certainly no sure thing. And if you're basing the success of your rotation on a 33-year-old pitcher coming off a season with a 5.00 ERA suddenly turning it around, that's a little scary. I certainly hope he does it, but he's not a certainty.

Jjav, I told you Contreras had some really bad outings that inflated his ERA. (Guillen wouldn't pull him) Contreras walks himself into trouble whereas Garland gets hit harder. Which pitcher do you have more confidence in turning it around? Contreras was tipping his pitches (see the game against Detroit, with Ben Davis being partially responsible) and worked at a snail's pace when he was in trouble. On the last game of the season he worked at a much faster pace (Buehrle-like) and dominated the Royals. Contreras has shown he can shut a team down, Garland can't.

Let's see how a full year in Chicago, with his family, along being teammates with one of his best buddies in a much relaxed atomsphere works out for Contreras.

OEO Magglio

02-07-2005, 11:24 PM

I agree, JUribe, the reality of our situation does in fact blow.

I would, as you all know, further question the rotation, particularly Buehrle.
The best thing about your idiotic comments about Buehrle are that you back it up with "he's not a power pitcher." :rolleyes:

guillen4life13

02-07-2005, 11:28 PM

You know what? I wish the season would just start, so all these kinds of threads can just be answered. As far as our pitching staff goes, if you think our staff in 2000 was anywhere as good as the staff we have going into this year, you are on some good stuff.

On paper, the 2000 team isn't half as good as all of the White Sox teams that have been put together since then. Things went wrong after '00, but during '00, everything went right. That's why the year, IMO, was a total fluke. Players had career years that were never repeated.

santo=dorf

02-07-2005, 11:28 PM

The best thing about your idiotic comments about Buehrle are that you back it up with "he's not a power pitcher." :rolleyes:

I know, Buehrle is one of the most consistent pitchers in the MLB, yet homefish thinks one night he is good, and the next night he gets rocked. Of course Buehrle had 23 quality starts (3rd in the AL) out of 35 starts. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Jjav829

02-07-2005, 11:39 PM

Jjav, I told you Contreras had some really bad outings that inflated his ERA. (Guillen wouldn't pull him) Contreras walks himself into trouble whereas Garland gets hit harder. Which pitcher do you have more confidence in turning it around? Contreras was tipping his pitches (see the game against Detroit, with Ben Davis being partially responsible) and worked at a snail's pace when he was in trouble. On the last game of the season he worked at a much faster pace (Buehrle-like) and dominated the Royals. Contreras has shown he can shut a team down, Garland can't.

Let's see how a full year in Chicago, with his family, along being teammates with one of his best buddies in a much relaxed atomsphere works out for Contreras.

That's fine. You want to take a wait and see approach, I understand that. In fact, that's exactly what I am saying. Give the guy a chance, but don't make him out to be a Cy Young winner in waiting.

Garland has shown the ability to shut down on a team on more occasions than Contreras. Let's look at Contreras' starts with the Sox.

So how many games did he show he can shut down a team? I see two, though you can make a case for the 6.2 IP, 1 ER game against the Indians. That's three. Without going through all his Yankee games, he had a few good games, but not much to write home about. I'm not going to detail all of Garland's games - you can check the game logs if you wish - but let's look at some of his better outings from this past season.

That's nine outings where he went at least 7 innings allowing 2 runs or less. I count Contreras doing the same thing three times. This isn't even including some of the decent outings Garland had that didn't hit the 7 inning mark or the outings where he went 7 innings but allowed three or four runs. So, I'll ask you how exactly has Contreras shown a greater ability to shut down teams than Garland? FWIW, I have greater confidence in Garland to turn it around.

JUribe1989

02-07-2005, 11:43 PM

I know, Buehrle is one of the most consistent pitchers in the MLB, yet homefish thinks one night he is good, and the next night he gets rocked. Of course Buehrle had 23 quality starts (3rd in the AL) out of 35 starts. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your signature and Buehrle's stats show how consistent and dominating they are. We have seen them dominate back to back before in July against the Tribe. We know we have something special in those 2. And think of this, we were winning in the first half without Freddy Garcia, think of how good we will do with him the first half. :bandance:

Jjav829

02-07-2005, 11:47 PM

Your signature and Buehrle's stats show how consistent and dominating they are. We have seen them dominate back to back before in July against the Tribe. We know we have something special in those 2. And think of this, we were winning in the first half without Freddy Garcia, think of how good we will do with him the first half. :bandance:

We also had Scott Schoeneweis pitching his ass off and Loaiza giving us some very good outings. It's not just a simple addition of Garcia. You have to remember that Schoeneweis really played a big role in the early season success of this team. He stepped up and pitched very well until he got hurt.

chisox06

02-07-2005, 11:51 PM

Maybe. I know, great answer. But the truth is we don't know. We're all optimistic because of the change, but really we have no idea how good this team is. I think some people are setting themselves up for a big letdown. I'm seeing some people say the Sox have one of the best rotations in baseball. That's a little overboard. I know, I know, Jon Garland is one of the best #5's in baseball. But that's just a title. We can label Garland the #5 and make the rotation seem great, but is he really the 5th best pitcher when you take into consideration health and performance? Buehrle and Freddy are the #1 and #2 and that's fine. But are El Duque and Contreras really better than Garland? Contreras had a 5.50 ERA last year, and that was lowered because he posted a 5.30 ERA with the Sox. That's brutal. He has a lot to show. By no means has he proven himself better than Jon Garland. El Duque had a good year last year, but he only pitched 84 innings. He pitched 146 the year before and 94 the year before that. It is very likely that at some point this year he will make a visit to the DL, meaning the return of an unproven starter.

It's nice to have 5 starters, but let's not mistake actually filling out a whole rotation for having a great rotation.

Very well put. You can turn this into a stat war all you want but you have really have 2 options. You can either A) Be cautiously optimistic or B) A pessimist until proven otherwise. On paper it looks like a very good rotation but with the all the intangibles referenced above we all know what a team on paper can get ya. In the great motivational words of Matt Foley..

JJav said it well, but my answer to the question posed by the title is that it could be, or it might not be. It's a simple matter of opinion which usually depends on whether one is an optimist or a pessmist. None of the pitchers in the rotation have been very consistant over the years in terms of health and performance, save for Buehrle. Garcia might post a 3.05 ERA or a 4.52. He's done both. Contreras a 3.30 or a 5.50. He's done both. El Duque a 3.30 or 4.85, with 214 innings or no innings. It's really a matter of speculate, then wait and see.

santo=dorf

02-07-2005, 11:52 PM

When I was talking about Contreras being able to shut team down, I was talking about his career. To me shutting down a team consists of not letting them put the ball in play, and having a WHIP 1 or less for the game.

I sort of like '03 more (hindsight is 20/20, but at the beginning of the season it looked very solid), but they're very close. Only time will tell.

Guillen, you threw out question marks in the sox rotation, show me one rotation in baseball which doesn't have question marks.

Randy Johnson-He's kind of old, no??
Pavano- Has had 1 good season in the nl, fluke?
Mussina- Can he bounce back from his average season last year?
Wright- Can he stay healthy, how does he perform without mazzone?
Brown- Can he stay healthy?

The fact is, imo the sox have one of the better rotations there are in baseball, I think just saying they had 3 guys who posted sub 4 era's in the al last year is something in and of itself. This is a very good rotation.

oeo

02-08-2005, 12:07 AM

I agree, JUribe, the reality of our situation does in fact blow.

I would, as you all know, further question the rotation, particularly Buehrle.

Why Buehrle? Out of the five guys we're putting out there you say particularly Buehrle? Wow...you don't know what's coming out of El Duque, Contreras, or Garland and you say Buerhle? I have much confidence in Buerhle, he's earned his trust and I think he deserves the respect.

Jjav829

02-08-2005, 12:07 AM

When I was talking about Contreras being able to shut team down, I was talking about his career. To me shutting down a team consists of not letting them put the ball in play, and having a WHIP under 1 for the game.

I only see four games where Jon Garland didn't give the opposition much of a chance.

Well then I guess we're gonna disagree here because to me, shutting down a team means not letting them score. So let me clear this up then. Which outing would you say is closer to shutting the other team down?

So you would rather have a pitcher who is going to keep runners off base, but when runners do reach, they are usually going to score than a pitcher who will allow runners but prevent them from scoring?

Jjav829

02-08-2005, 12:13 AM

Guillen, you threw out question marks in the sox rotation, show me one rotation in baseball which doesn't have question marks.

Randy Johnson-He's kind of old, no??
Pavano- Has had 1 good season in the nl, fluke?
Mussina- Can he bounce back from his average season last year?
Wright- Can he stay healthy, how does he perform without mazzone?
Brown- Can he stay healthy?

The fact is, imo the sox have one of the better rotations there are in baseball, I think just saying they had 3 guys who posted sub 4 era's in the al last year is something in and of itself. This is a very good rotation.

I think the difference is between the questions, the potential upside and the realistic upside. Look, we can take any team or any player in baseball and create a question mark. Will Pujols be healthy? Can Arod handle the pressure in New York after the collapse last year? I mean anything can be a question. The difference is that some questions are more realistic than others. There's also a difference in the kind of expected performance. Using the Yankees, both RJ and El Duque have injury questions. The difference is that RJ has a better recent history of staying healthy. If healthy, RJ is the best pitcher in baseball. If healthy, El Duque is a good pitcher, but more like a #3 in a rotation. There are questions about Pavano and Contreras in terms of what kind of performance they will have this year. The difference is that Pavano has actually proved himself capable of pitching well whereas Contreras hasn't.

So you would rather have a pitcher who is going to keep runners off base, but when runners do reach, they are usually going to score than a pitcher who will allow runners but prevent them from scoring?
Neither pitcher is shutting the team down, but I would take the top outing.

That's great. So what's your explanation for that 5.50 ERA last year if he "the Shiznit." Seems to be that any pitcher who is "the Shiznit" would be able to at the very least keep his ERA under 5 for a season. Even Jon Garland, who you've already deemed as worse than Contreras - despite his greater success - has never posted an ERA over 5. What gives? His family wasn't with him in 2003 either. He wasn't a much better pitcher one he left New York last year. So how did this pitcher who you would lead me to believe is a front line starter put up a 5.50 ERA last year?

OEO Magglio

02-08-2005, 12:24 AM

I think the difference is between the questions, the potential upside and the realistic upside. Look, we can take any team or any player in baseball and create a question mark. Will Pujols be healthy? Can Arod handle the pressure in New York after the collapse last year? I mean anything can be a question. The difference is that some questions are more realistic than others. There's also a difference in the kind of expected performance. Using the Yankees, both RJ and El Duque have injury questions. The difference is that RJ has a better recent history of staying healthy. If healthy, RJ is the best pitcher in baseball. If healthy, El Duque is a good pitcher, but more like a #3 in a rotation. There are questions about Pavano and Contreras in terms of what kind of performance they will have this year. The difference is that Pavano has actually proved himself capable of pitching well whereas Contreras hasn't.
Jjav, do you think it's fair to say it's not real fair comparing RJ and El duque because Rj is their ace and duque is supposed to be the sox 3. Here's what I mean, I'll put it like this are there really any questions regarding Buehrle or Freddy?? I guess someone can point to Freddy have a bit of an issue pitching at the cell but I think he'll be fine. Either way, like you said rj is a bit of question mark because of his age and health. Next we'll say pavano is their 2 starter, he's had 1 good season in the national league, personally I don't like his chances in ny but once again that's jmo. Now duque and Mussina both have some injury questions, Duque more so then Moose, however when both were healthy last year Orlando was a better pitcher then Mike. For the 4 and 5 spots you got Jose and Garland, Jose definitely has something to prove, he was beyond inconsistant last year but he was pretty good in his first year, there is no denying he's got the stuff to be a solid starter but it's all upstairs with him. As far as Jon goes, I think it's fair to say we know what we're getting from him. Go to the yanks 4 and 5 guys you have Wright and Brown. Jaret has had numerous injury problems and had a solid year last year but Leo is a fricken genius down in hotlanta, if Jaret stays healthy can he repeat those results?? Brown is another injury prone pitcher, I'd say there are quite a few reasonable question marks for the yanks.

Wow, what a long and pointless post,huh?? I see your point jjav, I just think there are quite a bit of questions in that yanks rotation and in basically every team in the majors but that's jmo.

santo=dorf

02-08-2005, 12:25 AM

That's great. So what's your explanation for that 5.50 ERA last year if he "the Shiznit." Seems to be that any pitcher who is "the Shiznit" would be able to at the very least keep his ERA under 5 for a season. Even Jon Garland, who you've already deemed as worse than Contreras - despite his greater success - has never posted an ERA over 5. What gives? His family wasn't with him in 2003 either. He wasn't a much better pitcher one he left New York last year. So how did this pitcher who you would lead me to believe is a front line starter put up a 5.50 ERA last year?

I already told you that Contreras had some really bad outings that inflated his ERA (Guillen refused to pull him.) You have said "I really don't see what the fascination is with Jose Contreras. I guess he is the new Garland." (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=589005&postcount=4)Well what do you think of Contreras in 2003? See why some people have faith in him?

Contreras has shown signs of being a very dominant pitcher. Can Judy say the same?
I didn't think so.

Jjav829

02-08-2005, 12:28 AM

Jjav, do you think it's fair to say it's not real fair comparing RJ and El duque because Rj is their ace and duque is supposed to be the sox 3. Here's what I mean, I'll put it like this are there really any questions regarding Buehrle or Freddy?? I guess someone can point to Freddy have a bit of an issue pitching at the cell but I think he'll be fine. Either way, like you said rj is a bit of question mark because of his age and health. Next we'll say pavano is their 2 starter, he's had 1 good season in the national league, personally I don't like his chances in ny but once again that's jmo. Now duque and Mussina both have some injury questions, Duque more so then Moose, however when both were healthy last year Orlando was a better pitcher then Mike. For the 4 and 5 spots you got Jose and Garland, Jose definitely has something to prove, he was beyond inconsistant last year but he was pretty good in his first year, there is no denying he's got the stuff to be a solid starter but it's all upstairs with him. As far as Jon goes, I think it's fair to say we know what we're getting from him. Go to the yanks 4 and 5 guys you have Wright and Brown. Jaret has had numerous injury problems and had a solid year last year but Leo is a fricken genius down in hotlanta, if Jaret stays healthy can he repeat those results?? Brown is another injury prone pitcher, I'd say there are quite a few reasonable question marks for the yanks.

Wow, what a long and pointless post,huh?? I see your point jjav, I just think there are quite a bit of questions in that yanks rotation and in basically every team in the majors but that's jmo.

Sorry, my point wasn't to compare the Yankees and Sox rotation pitcher for pitcher. I was just matching up pitches with similar question marks. My basic point is just that while we can see the Yankees pitchers have similar questions as the Sox, they also have much greater upside.

OEO Magglio

02-08-2005, 12:31 AM

Sorry, my point wasn't to compare the Yankees and Sox rotation pitcher for pitcher. I was just matching up pitches with similar question marks. My basic point is just that while we can see the Yankees pitchers have similar questions as the Sox, they also have much greater upside.
You made me write that whole darn thing and NOW you tell me :tongue: JK, fair enough I don't know why we're comparing those two anyways, I'm not trying to say the sox have a better rotation then the yanks I do however believe the sox atleast our in that top echelon, would you agree there. The sox rotation has quite the upside as well, jmo.

Jjav829

02-08-2005, 12:36 AM

I already told you that Contreras had some really bad outings that inflated his ERA (Guillen refused to pull him.) You have said "I really don't see what the fascination is with Jose Contreras. I guess he is the new Garland." (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=589005&postcount=4)Well what do you think of Contreras in 2003? See why some people have faith in him?

Contreras has shown signs of being a very dominant pitcher. Can Judy say the same?
I didn't think so.

What more do you want? Garland is not Randy Johnson. He's not going to strikeout a lot of hitters. He will give up hits and he is still susceptible to the big inning. But look at the runs he has given up! He consistently gave up less runs last year. They are both headcases, but Garland has up to 10 years in age on Contreras. He's only 25 yet you write him off. But the 33- (or 35?)-year-old Contreras puts up 8 good outings and you're ready to anoint him the Savior? Yes, count 'em, 8 good outings. Not a whole season. Not a whole season. 8 good outings which he followed up the next year with a 5.50 ERA. I see a borderline starting pitcher with good stuff who can't harness that stuff and at his age, may never harness it. You see....the next Curt Schilling? :?:

santo=dorf

02-08-2005, 12:44 AM

What more do you want? Garland is not Randy Johnson. He's not going to strikeout a lot of hitters. He will give up hits and he is still susceptible to the big inning. But look at the runs he has given up! He consistently gave up less runs last year. They are both headcases, but Garland has up to 10 years in age on Contreras. He's only 25 yet you write him off. But the 33- (or 35?)-year-old Contreras puts up 8 good outings and you're ready to anoint him the Savior? Yes, count 'em, 8 good outings. Not a whole season. Not a whole season. 8 good outings which he followed up the next year with a 5.50 ERA. I see a borderline starting pitcher with good stuff who can't harness that stuff and at his age, may never harness it. You see....the next Curt Schilling? :?:

I don't care about age, I just see a better pitcher in Contreras than Garland, you don't. Fair enough. Garland doesn't have a strikeout pitch, gets hit harder, and blames teammates for unearned runs. Contreras came here because he felt unwanted in New York, strikes out many more batters, is more dominant than Garland, and last year walked himself into trouble, alot. If Contreras cuts down on his walks, we have a great 1-3. What does Garland need to do to improve his game? Get a strikeout pitch, attack the batters more, and stop putting the ball into play so much. You're asking for alot more out of Garland than Contreras, which is why I won't be surprised when Contreras puts up better numbers than Judy this year.

Jabroni

02-08-2005, 12:56 AM

Here's the way I see it...

Contreras has much better stuff than Garland but he's not as consistent. He gets himself in trouble when he starts walking way too many guys but when he's on he's much more dominant than Garland. Garland is alot more consistent through 6 innings but is usually consistently mediocre. He can't dominate batters the way Contreras can when he's on. I see Garland's ceiling as only being a good #3 pitcher. Contreras has ace-quality stuff if he can ever hone his control and stop relying on his splitter.

Here's ESPN's take for Contreras and Garland...2005 Outlook
Contreras is a huge X-factor for the White Sox. He has No. 1 starter stuff if they can harness it, but he won't even be adequate in the No. 3 or 4 spot if he doesn't improve from last season. He should be more comfortable than he's ever been, in large part because his wife and children joined him in the United States last year. He could still make the Yankees regret giving up on him so soon.2005 Outlook
On the plus side, Garland did set a career high for innings pitched and had as many or more quality starts as Barry Zito, Tim Hudson and Javier Vazquez. The White Sox are likely to point out those facts as they shop him to other teams for possible trades. They do not want to open the season with Garland as more than their No. 5 starter. Although the righthander's salary is beginning to get expensive for that role, the two sides quickly came to terms on a one-year, $3.4 million contract in mid-November. Whether Garland stays or goes, this is a critical season for his career.

Jjav829

02-08-2005, 01:08 AM

I don't care about age, I just see a better pitcher in Contreras than Garland, you don't. Fair enough. Garland doesn't have a strikeout pitch, gets hit harder, and blames teammates for unearned runs. Contreras came here because he felt unwanted in New York, strikes out many more batters, is more dominant than Garland, and last year walked himself into trouble, alot. If Contreras cuts down on his walks, we have a great 1-3. What does Garland need to do to improve his game? Get a strikeout pitch, attack the batters more, and stop putting the ball into play so much. You're asking for alot more out of Garland than Contreras, which is why I won't be surprised when Contreras puts up better numbers than Judy this year.

Hmm, I'm sensing that this argument has more to do with Garland the person than Garland the pitcher.

Actually Garland only needs to do one thing and you named it; attack the batters more. By pitching more aggressively he will find himself walking less batters and striking out more just by virtue of getting ahead in the count more often and trying to put those hitters away. Any pitch can be a strikeout pitch when you find yourself up in the count 0-2 and have that batter in protection mode. It's just a matter of pitching wisely and effectively. As for Contreras, I think it's pretty obvious that his biggest problem is not relying on his fastball enough. Of course the problem is he struggles with spotting that fastball. Hopefully once he starts locating his fastball he'll gain more confidence in it. They both need to become more aggressive. The difference is that Garland has plenty of time ahead of him to do so. Contreras, well, the clock is ticking. The only thing that could save him from finding himself in the bullpen eventually is his $6 million price tag.

Jjav829

02-08-2005, 01:15 AM

Here's the way I see it...

Contreras has much better stuff than Garland but he's not as consistent. He gets himself in trouble when he starts walking way too many guys but when he's on he's much more dominant than Garland. Garland is alot more consistent through 6 innings but is usually consistently mediocre. He can't dominate batters the way Contreras can when he's on. I see Garland's ceiling as only being a good #3 pitcher. Contreras has ace-quality stuff if he can ever hone his control and stop relying on his splitter.

Here's ESPN's take for Contreras and Garland...[/font]

Yeah, that's basically the situation. Garland doesn't have Johnson/Santana type dominating stuff, but he still has good enough stuff to become a quality pitcher. His problem is that he seems to think because he can't overpower hitters like a Randy Johnson, he has to try to hit the corners. If he would trust himself a little more, not only would his walks go down, but his overall runs allowed would drop. Contreras on the other hand has more of the power pitcher type stuff but he's another case of a guy who doesn't know how to use it. It's really quite odd because most pitchers - particularly younger pitchers - tend to rely too much on their fastball because they feel hitters can't catch up to it. Contreras has the type of fastball that hitters will struggle with, but he'd rather rely on his splitter because it's less likely to get pounded out.

mcfish

02-08-2005, 01:16 AM

And when you factor in Koch's blown saves...You get 11. As bad as he pitched, he only blew three saves, and one of the games we won (Apr. 14). Don't kid yourself into thinking Koch had more of an effect on the season last year than he did.

mcfish

02-08-2005, 01:23 AM

Contreras has shown he can shut a team down, Garland can't.I seem to remember a 2-1 gem @ Minnesota on July 1st by Garland when the pressure was on and the team really needed it. If Garland could be more consistent, he would be much better, but we have seen that he has the ability to shut a team down.

santo=dorf

02-08-2005, 01:33 AM

I seem to remember a 2-1 gem @ Minnesota on July 1st by Garland when the pressure was on and the team really needed it. If Garland could be more consistent, he would be much better, but we have seen that he has the ability to shut a team down.

He didn't shut them down!!
7 IP, 7 H, 3 BB's, 2 K's. Johan made one mistake in the first inning and shut down the Sox. 8 IP, 3 H, 2 BB, 12 K's. Garland also had some great defense behind him in that game (Jose turned a great double play.)

mcfish

02-08-2005, 01:41 AM

He didn't shut them down!!
7 IP, 7 H, 3 BB's, 2 K's. Johan made one mistake in the first inning and shut down the Sox. 8 IP, 3 H, 2 BB, 12 K's. Garland also had some great defense behind him in that game (Jose turned a great double play.)Great double plays are part of the game just as much as home runs. Garland, on that one day, under intense pressure in Minnesota, where he got the ground ball instead of the base hit. He pitched very well that day. I honestly don't remember why, but I remember driving through Bridgeport listening to the end of that game and the post game comments. I don't have any clue why I was there.

So I disagree with your opinion that he did not shut them down, but I do apologize, because I posted that before I read the rest of the thread where you did define what you meant by shutting them down. I agree with JJav's definition of not giving up runs.

mdep524

02-08-2005, 02:07 AM

I have to chime in on this thread and say Jjav, you are my new hero. I wanted to quote a post of yours here, but I couldn't pick just one. I couldn't agree with you more on your sentiments about Contreras and Garland.

Ol' No. 2

02-08-2005, 10:16 AM

It seems to me that a lot of the Contreras-bashers are just bashing him because he's not Randy Johnson. He had a sub-par year last year and still won 13 games. And before you try to attribute it to the Yankees run support, he won 5 in 13 starts with the Sox, which, when you project to 33 starts, comes to 13 wins. If you think the Sox need Contreras to win 20 for the Sox to go anywhere, then they're screwed, but they don't. IMO it's pretty much a lock for Buehrle+Garcia+Garland to win 45 and probably a few more. That means the Sox need 25-30 from Hernandez+Contreras. They'll probably need Contreras to get just a little bit better than what he did in 2004, but given what he showed in 2003, I don't think that's a lost cause at all. Likewise, they don't need Hernandez to win 20, either. I think he's more than capable of 14-15, even if Ozzie has to keep his starts down to 25.

Flight #24

02-08-2005, 10:49 AM

Those who have unbridled optimism for the Sox '05 rotation are delusional. The rotation has a hell of a lot of potential. But it also is riddled with question marks, as you note. El Duque has been consistently good when he's healthy, but he's old and his health is a huge question mark. Contreras, despite his flashes of briliance, had an ERA well over 5.00 last year. Garland is a very good no. 5, but if the Cubans falter the Sox will need Garland to be better than a good no. 5. Garcia also has been relatively inconsistent in his career. That's not to say that the Sox don't have a good rotation - they probably have the best in the AL Central. But the rotation has flaws, no doubt about it.

Lest we all forget, Jon Garland statistically is a lot better than a #5 pitcher. In fact, if you look at where he ranked in various pitching metrics, he rates as an average to below average #3 or a great #4.

Of course, we're all familiar with the frustrating way in which he gives up hits & runs, something that makes diehard Sox fans look at him as worse than he actually is. After all - what's worse: a guy who dominates for 5 and then gives up 4 in the 6th or a guy who dribbles out a run here & there to go 6IP/4ER? In the end result, it's the same thing, but the "tease factor" makes the first guy more frustrating.

All of that is a long-way of saying that while the Sox and everyone are counting on JG as the #5, he's probably going to end up as the #3 or 4 pitcher on the staff. If we get "Good Jose", Jon will be a great #5 with a lot of starts and El Duque becomes the #4 with a #5-type workload. If we get "Bad Jose" - he'll have to be the #5 and get skipped on occasion, then Jon will have to stretch a bit and be the #4 with a heavy load while El Duque is the #3 and we'll need a heavier load than we'd like out of him.

In either scenario, because Jon Garland is a solid #4 pitcher with some upside since he's only 25 - the Sox do have some flexibility in the event either Contreras sucks or El Duque can't take a full workload. If both of those things happen, then they'll need to go find someone else.

Baby Fisk

02-08-2005, 11:26 AM

I have to chime in on this thread and say Jjav, you are my new hero. I wanted to quote a post of yours here, but I couldn't pick just one. I couldn't agree with you more on your sentiments about Contreras and Garland.
Same here, I share Jjav's sentiments.

"Is the Sox rotation really that good?" We'll start finding out on April 4th and beyond...

chaz171

02-08-2005, 12:05 PM

I think everyone is peeing up a rope splitting hairs like this.

Garland and Contreras are on the same team. they will both put up predictable number this year.

Look at one thing....verus any other pitching staff, we have one of the deepest in all of baseball....

If you take one thing into consideration..... the arm is not meant to throw a baseball.... accept that fact and we learn one thing: every pitcher is one throw away from being done.... a ML pitcher has the potential to look like Cy Young today and Curt Young tomorrow.... So Depth is Vital to success... you can never have too much pitching...

Hangar18

02-08-2005, 12:06 PM

This isnt the Best Rotation the SOX have ever had by a long shot,
BUT, it is the best rotation theyve had since 2000. This is also
the 1st time in 4 seasons that the White Sox have listened to WSI
and addressed the problems in the rotation. Too bad we wasted 4
seasons ....... but better late than never? Id rather have this staff
than last years staff.

infohawk

02-08-2005, 12:30 PM

Should we really be so optimistic about our chances?

A team can go a long way with a solid and deep, if not spectacular rotation. Our rotation doesn't have to be great, just better than most. Addressing the 5th starter spot was huge. Our biggest concern might be avoiding an injury to a starter that might cause the reappearance of the 5th starter void. Even so, Hermanson provides us with a little more versatility then we have had in the past in the event we need him to start.

Also, don't overlook how what seems to be an above average bullpen will benefit the rotation and contribute to lower ERAs.

TheBull19

02-08-2005, 12:44 PM

Another thing to consider is the Sox have a better 6th option in the bullpen in Hermanson than some teams have as their 4th or 5th starter.

Lip Man 1

02-08-2005, 01:10 PM

On paper (which is a key point) this rotation top to bottom is the best the Sox have had since the 1994 season (McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez, Bere, Sanderson) but it does have some real, serious, question marks.

In no particular order:

Garland's mental state from game to game in some cases inning to inning.

Contrares mental state. Perhaps now that his family is in the U.S. this will be relieved.

Hernandez's age and the fact that he's coming off an injury.

I also think that only in case of injury would Hermansen be shifted out of the bullpen. Williams has been adament that he wants him as a set up man. You very well might see the Sox go to one of the 'can't miss kids,' first before disrupting two spots in the rotation (i.e. the injured starter's and the bullpen set up.)

Lip

maurice

02-08-2005, 01:33 PM

Jjav829, I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread. It's refreshing to see you using statistics to defend an unfairly maligned young player against the unsupported conventional wisdom that another player is vastly superior.
:cool:

It's silly to consider Garland and Buehrle serious question marks when they've been two of the most consistent pitchers in the AL for several years. Garcia is pretty solid also. The only serious questions in the Sox rotation are whether Hernandez can pitch a lot of innings and whether Contrares can knock at least a run off of his ERA. Even so, the answers to these questions determine whether the Sox have an excellent rotation or just a pretty good rotation. The chances that this rotaton will downright suck are low, which is a very good thing.

Given that there are 30 teams = 150 starters, Garland looks pretty much like an average to above average pitcher (i.e. ranks in the top half in almost every stat). If you want to throw out the bottom 20%, he's still somewhere in the middle third of pitchers. That still makes him a solid to very good #4 starter, and at 25 gives room to become a #3 without a huge increase in performance.

And as mentioned, he's fairly steady year over year. So the Sox really need just one of 2 things to happen to have a very very good rotation: Hernandez to stay healthy or Contreras to step up ala 2003.

Jurr

02-08-2005, 01:58 PM

This isnt the Best Rotation the SOX have ever had by a long shot,
BUT, it is the best rotation theyve had since 2000. This is also
the 1st time in 4 seasons that the White Sox have listened to WSI
and addressed the problems in the rotation. Too bad we wasted 4
seasons ....... but better late than never? Id rather have this staff
than last years staff.
2003 was a great rotation. Wright, coming off his previous season, looked to be very solid at the 4 spot. Buehrle, Colon, and Garland were stout, and the 5 spot went to Loaiza.

Unfortunately, the offense was abysmal, and the pitching ended up tiring under the extreme load it was carrying during the first half.

Given that there are 30 teams = 150 starters, Garland looks pretty much like an average to above average pitcher (i.e. ranks in the top half in almost every stat). If you want to throw out the bottom 20%, he's still somewhere in the middle third of pitchers. That still makes him a solid to very good #4 starter, and at 25 gives room to become a #3 without a huge increase in performance.

And as mentioned, he's fairly steady year over year. So the Sox really need just one of 2 things to happen to have a very very good rotation: Hernandez to stay healthy or Contreras to step up ala 2003.Actually, those numbers underestimate Garland's performance because you're including NL pitchers, who have a built-in advantage. If you compare him to other AL pitchers, he comes out between about 19th and 27th in almost every category. He's a good, steady .500 pitcher. Not that many teams have a rotation with five .500 or better pitchers.

He's actually better than this makes him appear, since it's not fair to compare him to NL starters who face pitchers instead of DHs. His AL rank in ERA is 26th (tie). That's pretty darn good, especially when you consider that they're 14 teams in the AL (70 starting slots), that Garland pitches half his games at Coors East, that he was 24 years old, and that he was paid $2.3MM.

OurBitchinMinny

02-08-2005, 03:26 PM

He once called Buehrle a #3 or #4. :rolleyes:

I never called buerhle a #3 or #4. There is only maybe one or two teams who he would be a #3 for. But Im also not convinced he is this teams ace. Freddy Garcia has the best stuff on this team. But to this point buerhle has a better head on his shoulders. Then again, Garland might have better stuff than either of them, but he is the ultimate head case. We have 1a and 1b. This year all comes down to the two cubans

OEO Magglio

02-08-2005, 03:48 PM

I never called buerhle a #3 or #4. There is only maybe one or two teams who he would be a #3 for. But Im also not convinced he is this teams ace. Freddy Garcia has the best stuff on this team. But to this point buerhle has a better head on his shoulders. Then again, Garland might have better stuff than either of them, but he is the ultimate head case. We have 1a and 1b. This year all comes down to the two cubans
Actually I'm 100 percent sure you once did call him a 3 or 4.

guillen4life13

02-08-2005, 08:37 PM

I'm not denying that the Sox rotation isn't one of the best/deepest in the majors. All I'm saying is that there is much higher realistic risk associated with it. So, if everyone stays healthy and/or composed (Contreras), this rotation is arguably the best one out there. I don't think that's very likely though. I'm not worried about Buehrle or Garcia, and I expect a mid 4 era from JG. Duque and Contreras... I don't know what to expect from these guys. When they're on, they're on, but when they're not, they're either injured (Duque) or completely melting down (Contreras).

OEO Magglio

02-08-2005, 08:42 PM

I'm not denying that the Sox rotation isn't one of the best/deepest in the majors. All I'm saying is that there is much higher realistic risk associated with it. So, if everyone stays healthy and/or composed (Contreras), this rotation is arguably the best one out there. I don't think that's very likely though. I'm not worried about Buehrle or Garcia, and I expect a mid 4 era from JG. Duque and Contreras... I don't know what to expect from these guys. When they're on, they're on, but when they're not, they're either injured (Duque) or completely melting down (Contreras).
Guillen, your point is well taken but like I said every single rotation out there has some big question marks as well. I personally like the rotation a lot and I think you'll see Contreras break out a bit, his era still might be mid to upper 4's because there will still be some outings where he implodes. If duque stays healthy I think at worse you can expect an era around 4.

Jjav829

02-09-2005, 12:21 AM

Jjav829, I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread. It's refreshing to see you using statistics to defend an unfairly maligned young player against the unsupported conventional wisdom that another player is vastly superior.
:cool:

It's silly to consider Garland and Buehrle serious question marks when they've been two of the most consistent pitchers in the AL for several years. Garcia is pretty solid also. The only serious questions in the Sox rotation are whether Hernandez can pitch a lot of innings and whether Contrares can knock at least a run off of his ERA. Even so, the answers to these questions determine whether the Sox have an excellent rotation or just a pretty good rotation. The chances that this rotaton will downright suck are low, which is a very good thing.

Ha. I know what you're getting at, but I never said Garland was unfairly maligned. I just said that I see no reason to assume that Contreras is the better pitcher or that Contreras is any more of a sure thing than Garland, who has at least proven what he can do. And FWIW, the Knicks won last night without Crawford. :wink:

Make no mistake though, Contreras hasn't proven anywhere near what Hinrich has. :cool: The Garland/Crawford comparison is reasonable.

OEO Magglio

02-09-2005, 12:23 AM

The Garland/Crawford comparison is reasonable.
No, I've always hated Crawford and I have no problem with Jon, so you're wrong about this, no argument. :tongue:

pissonthecubs

02-09-2005, 12:52 AM

After years past of rotations that include the likes of Dan Wright, Cal Eldred, Gary Glover, Jon Rauch and Todd Richie, I will come out and say that I am some what excited to see what this pitching staff can do. Which is a hell of a lot more then I could say for the last few staff the Sox have shoved out there. Mark and Freddy are a very solid 1-2 and only a few teams should be able to match that, and with Garland now in his true spot, the 5 spot, this is a very respectable rotation. El Duque and Contreras in the middle of it I think will be the perfect spot for the two of them as well. I will give KW his kudos this off season for getting what I think is, a solid rotation that with our line up, should be tough to beat.

santo=dorf

02-09-2005, 01:06 AM

I never called buerhle a #3 or #4. There is only maybe one or two teams who he would be a #3 for. But Im also not convinced he is this teams ace. Freddy Garcia has the best stuff on this team. But to this point buerhle has a better head on his shoulders. Then again, Garland might have better stuff than either of them, but he is the ultimate head case. We have 1a and 1b. This year all comes down to the two cubans

so is buerhle and he is paid like one. Garcia is a 2 or 3. Buerhle is a 3 or 4. They need to sign a #1

:rolleyes:

SoxxoS

02-09-2005, 01:17 AM

El Duque is the key to the season...I am going to take KW's word for it...and he said that the physical "was one of the best he'd seen in a long, long time." I hope that's the case, b/c if Contreras/Hernandez falter in whatever way, we are looking at the same problem we had last year (Neat Cotts, BMac, Munoz or Jason Grilli). None of which I have any confidence to win any games, whatsoever.

I just can't wait for the damn season to start.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 10:51 AM

After years past of rotations that include the likes of Dan Wright, Cal Eldred, Gary Glover, Jon Rauch and Todd Richie, I will come out and say that I am some what excited to see what this pitching staff can do. Which is a hell of a lot more then I could say for the last few staff the Sox have shoved out there. Mark and Freddy are a very solid 1-2 and only a few teams should be able to match that, and with Garland now in his true spot, the 5 spot, this is a very respectable rotation. El Duque and Contreras in the middle of it I think will be the perfect spot for the two of them as well. I will give KW his kudos this off season for getting what I think is, a solid rotation that with our line up, should be tough to beat.

Agreed. This is as strong a rotation I've seen since '95. That said, as in 1995, talent on paper doesn't necessarily produce on the diamond.

The '05 Sox rotation reminds me a little of what the Yankees had last year: Lots of talent, but a lot of guys who are in the twilight of their careers. That could be a big problem down the stretch.

maurice

02-09-2005, 02:54 PM

I'm not denying that the Sox rotation isn't one of the best/deepest in the majors. All I'm saying is that there is much higher realistic risk associated with it.

:?: Much higher than what? I don't understand your point of comparison.

Any rational poster must acknowledge that Hernandez is a health risk and that Contrares is a risk to post another 5+ ERA. OTOH, the track records of Buehrle, Garcia, and Garland show that they are extremely low risks with respect to both health and baseline performance. All three are virtual locks to pitch 180+ innings with an ERA under 5 (to say the least). That might not sound like much, but if you look around the league I think you'll find that it amounts to a much lower realistic risk than most teams' rotations (especially the IP factor). IMHO, that justifies our substantial optimism.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 03:04 PM

While we may not have any "holes" in our rotation, we still do not have a true closer. That is the biggest problem, IMO.

Ol' No. 2

02-09-2005, 03:05 PM

While we may not have any "holes" in our rotation, we still do not have a true closer. That is the biggest problem, IMO.Based on what? What makes a "true" closer?

SoxxoS

02-09-2005, 03:06 PM

While we may not have any "holes" in our rotation, we still do not have a true closer. That is the biggest problem, IMO.

Yeah we do. Shingo was his name-o. Until he proves he can't handle it, he is a "true" closer. His success rate was over 90% last year, wasn't it?

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 03:12 PM

Yeah we do. Shingo was his name-o. Until he proves he can't handle it, he is a "true" closer. His success rate was over 90% last year, wasn't it?

19 saves in 59 appearances doesn't make him a "true" closer. He has no velocity and he'll be 36 :o: this season. He'd be better suited for long relief than a closer role, IMO.

Jjav829

02-09-2005, 03:23 PM

19 saves in 59 appearances doesn't make him a "true" closer. He has no velocity and he'll be 36 :o: this season. He'd be better suited for long relief than a closer role, IMO.

I believe the number you are looking for is 20. As in, Shingo had 19 saves in 20 save opportunities. Saying he had 19 saves in 59 appearances just discredits his work as a closer, though I suppose that was your purpose. You can only judge him by what he has done as a closer and last year he was damn successful as a closer. Will he do the same this year? Who knows. But if he comes anywhere close to what he did in 2004, he will be doing a great job.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 03:31 PM

I believe the number you are looking for is 20. As in, Shingo had 19 saves in 20 save opportunities. Saying he had 19 saves in 59 appearances just discredits his work as a closer, though I suppose that was your purpose. You can only judge him by what he has done as a closer and last year he was damn successful as a closer. Will he do the same this year? Who knows. But if he comes anywhere close to what he did in 2004, he will be doing a great job.

I don't think that it's wise to rely on a 36-year-old who gets by on 65 mph curveballs and 60 mph changeups. Not to take away from what Shingo did last year, but I attribute a lot of his success to the fact that his opponents just weren't used to that type of pitching last year. As the season went on, opposing hiters made adjustments to him and hit him much harder. At the risk of being overly-cynical, I just don't like the fact that KW is relying on this guy to take us to the playoffs this year. I'd feel much more comfortable with a proven MLB closer with more arms strength (like Foulke... damn you, Jerry Manuel).

maurice

02-09-2005, 03:35 PM

Let me get this straight . . . Takatsu isn't a "real" closer because he can't throw 100 MPH and his out pitch is a changeup . . . but Foulke IS a real closer despite the fact that he can't throw 100 MPH and his out pitch is a changeup?!?

There's no question that Foulke >>> Takatsu, and I'm less than fully confident that Takatsu will pitch lights out in 2005, but the misguided notion that a changeup pitcher can't be a closer ignores the fact that very many very good closers rely on changeups. This is the sort of "reasoning" folks used to justify the trade for Koch.

While KW doesn't have Gagne in reserve, I'd say that Hermanson, Vizcaino, and Marte are pretty darn solid backup options at closer compared to most teams.

Ol' No. 2

02-09-2005, 03:51 PM

I don't think that it's wise to rely on a 36-year-old who gets by on 65 mph curveballs and 60 mph changeups. Not to take away from what Shingo did last year, but I attribute a lot of his success to the fact that his opponents just weren't used to that type of pitching last year. As the season went on, opposing hiters made adjustments to him and hit him much harder. At the risk of being overly-cynical, I just don't like the fact that KW is relying on this guy to take us to the playoffs this year. I'd feel much more comfortable with a proven MLB closer with more arms strength (like Foulke... damn you, Jerry Manuel).Now this is getting ridiculous. Next you're going to say that a 3B ALWAYS has to be a power hitter, etc. etc. etc. Poppycock. I don't care if he revives the ephus pitch and throws it from between his legs as long as it's effective.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 03:51 PM

Let me get this straight . . . Takatsu isn't a "real" closer because he can't throw 100 MPH and his out pitch is a changeup . . . but Foulke IS a real closer despite the fact that he can't throw 100 MPH and his out pitch is a changeup?!?

There's no question that Foulke >>> Takatsu, and I'm less than fully confident that Takatsu will pitch lights out in 2005, but the misguided notion that a changeup pitcher can't be a closer ignores the fact that very many very good closers rely on changeups. This is the sort of "reasoning" folks used to justify the trade for Koch.

While KW doesn't have Gagne in reserve, I'd say that Hermanson, Vizcaino, and Marte are pretty darn solid backup options at closer compared to most teams.

My God, aren't we being a bit defensive here? :rolleyes:

How long did Shingo pitch in the closer role last season? Four months? How does that and his 19 saves make him a legitimate MLB closer? Not even the most biased Sox fan could honestly say that he doesn't have something to prove this season.

No, I'm not saying that a closer has to throw 100 to be successful in MLB. What I am saying is that Shingo's unorthodox style of pitching helped him tremendously last year. And what are the odds that opposing hitters will make adjustments this year? I think they're pretty high. Does the name Hideo Nomo ring a bell? And isn't Shingo's age (36) of concern to anyone? It is to me.

I'd like to see Shingo have a 40-save season just as much as everybody else here. But I have my doubts and I believe that they're justified.

OEO Magglio

02-09-2005, 04:00 PM

I don't think that it's wise to rely on a 36-year-old who gets by on 65 mph curveballs and 60 mph changeups. Not to take away from what Shingo did last year, but I attribute a lot of his success to the fact that his opponents just weren't used to that type of pitching last year. As the season went on, opposing hiters made adjustments to him and hit him much harder. At the risk of being overly-cynical, I just don't like the fact that KW is relying on this guy to take us to the playoffs this year. I'd feel much more comfortable with a proven MLB closer with more arms strength (like Foulke... damn you, Jerry Manuel).
First off shingo was 19 out of 20 in SVO what else would you like him to do for him to prove he's a closer. Second KW has a backup plan incase shingo does faulter, if you forgot he brought in Hermanson who waws 17 out of 20 in that role last year, so in essence your post makes 0 sense.

OEO Magglio

02-09-2005, 04:03 PM

My God, aren't we being a bit defensive here? :rolleyes:

How long did Shingo pitch in the closer role last season? Four months? How does that and his 19 saves make him a legitimate MLB closer? Not even the most biased Sox fan could honestly say that he doesn't have something to prove this season.

No, I'm not saying that a closer has to throw 100 to be successful in MLB. What I am saying is that Shingo's unorthodox style of pitching helped him tremendously last year. And what are the odds that opposing hitters will make adjustments this year? I think they're pretty high. Does the name Hideo Nomo ring a bell? And isn't Shingo's age (36) of concern to anyone? It is to me.

I'd like to see Shingo have a 40-save season just as much as everybody else here. But I have my doubts and I believe that they're justified.
The same Hideo Nomo who has a career era just a tad above 4 and the only reason it's over 4 is because he had a terrible injury riddled season last year, ya Nomo is awful :rolleyes:

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:03 PM

First off shingo was 19 out of 20 in SVO what else would you like him to do for him to prove he's a closer.

Well, I'd like to see him pitch a full season in the closer's role and put up at least 30 saves. Is that too much to ask for? :rolleyes:

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:06 PM

The same Hideo Nomo who has a career era just a tad above 4 and the only reason it's over 4 is because he had a terrible injury riddled season last year, ya Nomo is awful :rolleyes:

Yeah, that would be the same Hideo Nomo whose ERA went from 2.54 to 4.25 in two seasons after NL hitters made adjustments to him. :rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2

02-09-2005, 04:13 PM

Well, I'd like to see him pitch a full season in the closer's role and put up at least 30 saves. Is that too much to ask for? :rolleyes:I'd like to see him pitch 5 full seasons with at least 30 saves. But he's only had one season so far. Look out!
:chickenlittle

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:16 PM

I'd like to see him pitch 5 full seasons with at least 30 saves. But he's only had one season so far. Look out!

Hey, I'd like to see that, too. But I don't even know where your "one" is coming from.

So, I'm the bad guy for suggesting that AL hitters may make adjustments to Shingo this year and that his age may be a problem? My God, this is blind homerism at its best. :rolleyes:

OEO Magglio

02-09-2005, 04:16 PM

Yeah, that would be the same Hideo Nomo whose ERA went from 2.54 to 4.25 in two seasons after NL hitters made adjustments to him. :rolleyes:
You fail to mention he had 2 other seasons in the nl with an era under 3 and a half. Anyways nomo has nothing to do with this, they are 2 different pitchers. Shingo had one bad month last year where his control was completely off probably from pitching more innings then he ever did in Japan. As long as Shingo gets ahead of the hitters he'll be fine.

maurice

02-09-2005, 04:17 PM

My God, aren't we being a bit defensive here? :rolleyes:

Not at all. Like I said, I actually agree with some of your concerns (especially age), but others are precisely the same nonsense people used to level against Foulke -- he relies on his changeup too much to be a closer, he gets guys out with a trick pitch, the league will catch up with him, etc.

Does the name Hideo Nomo ring a bell?

The only thing Nomo and Takatsu have in common is nationality. They're completely different kinds of pitchers -- starter v. reliever, stikeout v. fineses / control, etc. Foulke is a much better analogy (with the exception of age).

Besides, the league never "caught up" with Nomo. He's just been extremely inconsistent. He was good as a rookie in 1995, and has been very good as recently as 2002 and 2003.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:20 PM

You fail to mention he had 2 other seasons in the nl with an era under 3 and a half. Anyways nomo has nothing to do with this, they are 2 different pitchers. Shingo had one bad month last year where his control was completely off probably from pitching more innings then he ever did in Japan. As long as Shingo gets ahead of the hitters he'll be fine.

You failed to miss my point that Nomo went from "the next Fernando" to "just a good pitcher" after hitters made adjustments to his unorthodox style of pitching. Nomo's never come close to duplicating that 2.54 ERA. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that Shingo may not be 95% in save opportunities next year for the same reason.

Despite what you may think, I really hope that you're right about Shingo. But there's no need to jump down my throat for being concerned.

Ol' No. 2

02-09-2005, 04:22 PM

Hey, I'd like to see that, too. But I don't even know where your "one" is coming from.

So, I'm the bad guy for suggesting that AL hitters may make adjustments to Shingo this year and that his age may be a problem? My God, this is blind homerism at its best. :rolleyes:They said the same thing last year, too. All season long all I heard was that by the end of the season hitters would figure him out, yada, yada. It never happened.

He pitched all season last year with a 2.31 ERA and a WHIP less than 1. And please don't try to tell me it wasn't all as a closer because it makes no difference. Maybe they will figure him out. Maybe Konerko will lose his swing. Maybe the sky really will fall. Better stay inside under your bed just in case.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:24 PM

Maybe Konerko will lose his swing.

You mean like in 2003? :roflmao:

You're right. I'm a complete fool for being concerned. :rolleyes:

OEO Magglio

02-09-2005, 04:28 PM

You mean like in 2003? :roflmao:

You're right. I'm a complete fool for being concerned. :rolleyes:
Being concerned is one thing but you said we have no true closer which is a false statement and you said Kenny is relying on him to take us to the playoffs. What would you like Kenny to do, just get rid of a guy who was absolutely awesome last year because you have concerns?? Kenny brought in a pretty good backup plan if you ask me, he's not necessarily relying on shingo to take us to the playoffs.

Ol' No. 2

02-09-2005, 04:29 PM

You mean like in 2003? :roflmao:

You're right. I'm a complete fool for being concerned. :rolleyes:There are plenty of things to be concerned about that have some indication that they're reasonably likely to happen. If Shingo was the biggest worry the Sox had, they'd be locks to win the WS.

maurice

02-09-2005, 04:30 PM

You failed to miss my point that Nomo went from "the next Fernando" to "just a good pitcher" after hitters made adjustments to his unorthodox style of pitching.

I agree. Everybody "failed to miss" your point. We all hit the nail on the head by pointing out that your claim is bogus. The league did not adjust to Nomo. His success was not entirely a result of his odd windup.

Did he come up with a new gimmick before the 2002 season? Besides, even assuming that your analogy is correct, we should expect a .65 bump in Takatsu's 2.31 ERA. I can live with that.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:30 PM

Being concerned is one thing but you said we have no true closer which is a false statement

Well, that depends on your definition of "true closer." IMO, it's a guy who's actually been in the closer role for at least a full season and has put up 30 saves. If your definition is different, then we're arguing semantics.

And, no, I would never suggest that KW dump Shingo. He's an effective pitcher and is relatively cheap.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:32 PM

[several mediocre seasons]

Funny how you glossed over that point. I saw a lot of ERAs in the mid-upper 4's. That's quite a bit different from his 2.54 rookie ERA which, by the way, he's never come close to repeating. And it had nothing to do with hitters making adjustments? I don't buy that.

Ol' No. 2

02-09-2005, 04:34 PM

Well, that depends on your definition of "true closer." IMO, it's a guy who's actually been in the closer role for at least a full season and has put up 30 saves. If your definition is different, then we're arguing semantics.

And, no, I would never suggest that KW dump Shingo. He's an effective pitcher and is relatively cheap.If you were to say "established" closer, that might be closer to the truth. No "true" closer is entirely different. If you're going to worry about Takatsu, then you might as well worry about all 24 of the other guys, too.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:35 PM

If you were to say "established" closer, that might be closer to the truth.

OK, I'll concede that point. Perhaps my original choice of words was poor.

Alright, I would've liked to see KW bring in an ESTABLISHED closer. :D:

Jjav829

02-09-2005, 04:35 PM

Hey, I'd like to see that, too. But I don't even know where your "one" is coming from.

You're joking, right? You won't even admit that he had a good season last year, yet you expect us to take you seriously?

So, I'm the bad guy for suggesting that AL hitters may make adjustments to Shingo this year and that his age may be a problem? My God, this is blind homerism at its best. :rolleyes:

No one is saying that hitters won't adjust to him. There will be some adjustments made by both sides. But he was very good last year. So even if there is a bit of a dropoff, he should still be a good closer. Look, no one is mistaking him for Gagne. I think we all agree that there are at least 7 or 8 closers better than Shingo, and maybe more. But guess what, Kenny didn't have a chance to get any of those guys. The best available was Armando Benitez and look what it cost the Giants to get him. If you want to make the case that we should have spent $22 million over 3 years for Benitez, that's up to you. But I'll take my chances on Shingo being able to hold his own for another year or two and grab a few backup plans. That's exactly what Kenny has done.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:37 PM

You're joking, right? You won't even admit that he had a good season last year, yet you expect us to take you seriously?

Um, I didn't see Shingo in the closer's role for the entire season or rack up 30 saves last year. That's what I was talking about. Go back and read the post. :rolleyes:

Jjav829

02-09-2005, 04:37 PM

OK, I'll concede that point. Perhaps my original choice of words was poor.

Alright, I would've liked to see KW bring in an ESTABLISHED closer. :D:

As I just said, I think we're all in agreement here. No one is saying that we'd rather have Shingo over Gagne, Rivera, Lidge, K-Rod, etc. But those guys are not available. The best available was an aging and shakey Armando Benitez who was given a big contract by the Giants. It's not like Eric Gagne was a free agent and Kenny decided not to sign him because he have Shingo.

Jjav829

02-09-2005, 04:41 PM

Um, I didn't see Shingo in the closer's role for the entire season or rack up 30 saves last year. That's what I was talking about. Go back and read the post. :rolleyes:

He pitched one full season effectively. He spent a good portion of that season closing, but not the full season because of Koch's salary. Of course we'd all love to have seen him close successfully for the entire season. But we can only judge him based on what we have seen and so far what we have seen has been very good. Well that is to most of us, at least. :rolleyes:

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:42 PM

As I just said, I think we're all in agreement here. No one is saying that we'd rather have Shingo over Gagne, Rivera, Lidge, K-Rod, etc. But those guys are not available. The best available was an aging and shakey Armando Benitez who was given a big contract by the Giants. It's not like Eric Gagne was a free agent and Kenny decided not to sign him because he have Shingo.

Yeah, I agree. Then again, Kenny still needs to shoulder some of the blame, as he dumped a very good closer for a washed-up one two years ago.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:43 PM

He pitched one full season effectively. He spent a good portion of that season closing, but not the full season because of Koch's salary. Of course we'd all love to have seen him close successfully for the entire season. But we can only judge him based on what we have seen and so far what we have seen has been very good. Well that is to most of us, at least. :rolleyes:

And apparently it's not proper form here to question his age or relative lack of experience pitching in the Majors. :rolleyes:

maurice

02-09-2005, 04:47 PM

Funny how you glossed over that point.

*** are you talking about? You're glossing over MY point, so I'll make it a THIRD time:

Your explanation ("hitters making adjustments") is illogical because it utterly fails to account for Nomo's success in 1996, 2002, and especially 2003 (3.09 ERA). Did he come up with a new gimmick before each of these seasons?

Jjav829

02-09-2005, 04:48 PM

And apparently it's not proper form here to question his age or lack of experience pitching in the Majors. :rolleyes:

Where has anyone said that? Show me it. No one has said that there aren't questions about his age or experience. All we have said is that he has pitched very well in his time here. Will that continue? Who knows. But the options we had were very limited and of those options, continuing to go with Shingo was the best one. You like giving instructions so here's two; stop reading into my messages and stop criticizing the members of the site.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:51 PM

*** are you talking about? You're glossing over MY point, so I'll make it a THIRD time:

Your explanation ("hitters making adjustments") is illogical because it utterly fails to account for Nomo's success in 1996, 2002, and especially 2003 (3.09 ERA). Did he come up with a new gimmick before each of these seasons?

No, it's not. Nomo's ERA went up significantly from '96 to '97 because hitters adjusted to him. He didn't have a sub-4 ERA season again until 2002. I don't care what Shingo's ERA is going to be SIX YEARS from now because he'll have retired long before then.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:52 PM

You like giving instructions so here's two; stop reading into my messages and stop criticizing the members of the site.

So, it's OK for the members of this site to criticize my way of thinking, but not vice versa. :?:

Ol' No. 2

02-09-2005, 04:53 PM

Yeah, I agree. Then again, Kenny still needs to shoulder some of the blame, as he dumped a very good closer for a washed-up one two years ago.Ohmigod. I just knew it was going to come around to this. Get over it already.

Flight #24

02-09-2005, 04:54 PM

Just FYI - Shingo's "issues" in the 2d half were primarily in outings in which he went more than 1 inning. I see 6 multi-inning outings and 5 in which he was scored upon. That's most of the times where he was scored on in the 2d half.

Seems to me a question of his ability to go multi innings more than the AL "catching up".

OEO Magglio

02-09-2005, 04:55 PM

No, it's not. Nomo's ERA went up significantly from '96 to '97 because hitters adjusted to him. He didn't have a sub-4 ERA season again until 2002. I don't care what Shingo's ERA is going to be SIX YEARS from now because he'll have retired long before then.
So you're saying that Shingo's trends are going to directly follow Nomo's trends?? Hell, if so Shingo's era would be 2.96 this upcoming year, you would be dissapointed in that??

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:58 PM

Just FYI - Shingo's "issues" in the 2d half were primarily in outings in which he went more than 1 inning. I see 6 multi-inning outings and 5 in which he was scored upon. That's most of the times where he was scored on in the 2d half.

Seems to me a question of his ability to go multi innings more than the AL "catching up".

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Finally...

That's an interesting stat. I hadn't considered that before. So what do we attribute this lack of stamina to? Age, perhaps? Or was his arm just not conditioned to pitch more than one inning back in Japan? (Even guys like Gagne can't go more than two innings or so without running into problems.)

Whitesox029

02-09-2005, 04:58 PM

Just FYI - Shingo's "issues" in the 2d half were primarily in outings in which he went more than 1 inning. I see 6 multi-inning outings and 5 in which he was scored upon. That's most of the times where he was scored on in the 2d half.

Seems to me a question of his ability to go multi innings more than the AL "catching up".
And with the improved Bullpen, Shingo should not have to throw multiple innings. That's what Hermanson, Vizcaino, Marte and Politte are for.

BigFrankRetard

02-09-2005, 04:59 PM

So you're saying that Shingo's trends are going to directly follow Nomo's trends??

No, I'm just noting the parallel between their unorthodox styles of pitching and the precedent established by Nomo. I honestly have no idea how Shingo will pitch this year.

JRIG

02-09-2005, 05:00 PM

Just FYI - Shingo's "issues" in the 2d half were primarily in outings in which he went more than 1 inning. I see 6 multi-inning outings and 5 in which he was scored upon. That's most of the times where he was scored on in the 2d half.

Seems to me a question of his ability to go multi innings more than the AL "catching up".

I was very suspicios of Takatsu's success, but this is true. Many times, even if he faced a team two or three times last year, he was just as effective. He shouldn't be stretched out more than an inning ever, which makes him a bit less valuable. But for three out, he proved to be very good last season.

Flight #24

02-09-2005, 05:00 PM

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Finally...

That's an interesting stat. I hadn't considered that before. So what do we attribute this lack of stamina to? Age, perhaps? Or was his arm just not conditioned to pitch more than one inning back in Japan? (Even guys like Gagne can't go more than two innings or so without running into problems.)

Seems like an arm-strength thing. His BAA was .154 on pitches 1-15 but jumps to .262 on pitches 16-30. 1 inning stints should run right around 15 pitches.

maurice

02-09-2005, 05:10 PM

No, it's not. Nomo's ERA went up significantly from '96 to '97 because hitters adjusted to him. He didn't have a sub-4 ERA season again until 2002. I don't care what Shingo's ERA is going to be SIX YEARS from now because he'll have retired long before then.

You're still completely missing the gaping hole in your argument. Nomo's ERA went up by .65 after pitching 191 MLB innings. In fact, it stayed under 3.20 even after more than 400 MLB innings and through two full seasons.

Takatsu has only 62.1 MLB IP. Therefore, your prediction that Takatsu will follow Nomo's model means that he should maintain his 2.31 ERA for another 130 innings before MLB hitters adjust, at which point his ERA will skyrocket to 2.96 and remain there for the next 228 innings . . . at which point Takatsu will be 57 years old. If you "don't care what Shingo's ERA is going to be SIX YEARS from now," you shouldn't be concerned about what his ERA will be 350 innings from now.

Let's be overly generous with your model by ignoring IP and instead focusing on MLB seasons. This would mean that Takatsu's 2004 ERA was a "fluke" and that batters will immediately adjust by the start of the 2005 season, resulting in a 2005 ERA of 2.96. The horror!

In any event, Nomo's success in 1996, 2002, and 2003 completely rules out your theory that MLB hitters adjust to gimmicky Japanese pitchers after one, 62 inning season.

Ol' No. 2

02-09-2005, 05:16 PM

Seems like an arm-strength thing. His BAA was .154 on pitches 1-15 but jumps to .262 on pitches 16-30. 1 inning stints should run right around 15 pitches.That's not many pitches, and he doesn't throw hard enough to wear out his arm. Throwing off a hitter's timing is a big part of his success and even just watching from the dugout, a hitter can begin to adjust. If he only goes through 3 or 4 hitters, no one really gets a chance to adjust, but if he comes out for a second inning, those batters have seen more of him and may be in a better position to time their stroke. That seems like a more reasonable explanation than arm strength.

maurice

02-09-2005, 05:22 PM

Takatsu was not conditioned to pitch more than about 45 games / season and 1 inning / game. This was his work pattern with the Swallows from 1998 - 2003. His 59 games with the Sox in 2004 was the most he's pitched in a single season, and his 62.1 innings was the most he's pitched since 1997.

longshot7

02-09-2005, 06:30 PM

This has 0 to do with Shingo ---

but didn't Nomo throw TWO no-no's after the league SUPPOSEDLY caught up to him?

tstrike2000

02-15-2005, 12:04 AM

Every team has question marks, not just the Sox. If I'm not mistaken, the Twins had huge question marks a few years ago when Radke had a high ERA, Joe Mays, and Eric Milton had large stints on the disabled list and they still won the division. This year is much the same for the Twins outside Santana. And even Santana hasn't established too many seasons in a row of 200+ innings. Radke and Losch can be inconsistant. The Indians are relying on Kevin Millwood to be their ace after coming off elbow problems last year. The Sox have a good a shot as anyone, if not better.

chisox77

02-15-2005, 03:35 PM

The fact that Garland is a #5 on this staff is a good thing. It's always hard to tell with pitching, but I like the what the Sox have.

Jurr

02-15-2005, 04:50 PM

That's not many pitches, and he doesn't throw hard enough to wear out his arm. Throwing off a hitter's timing is a big part of his success and even just watching from the dugout, a hitter can begin to adjust. If he only goes through 3 or 4 hitters, no one really gets a chance to adjust, but if he comes out for a second inning, those batters have seen more of him and may be in a better position to time their stroke. That seems like a more reasonable explanation than arm strength.
Sheer poetry to read. We have a winner...

SouthBendSox

02-18-2005, 09:19 PM

geez...

since when did SoxFans become so much like Flubbie fans after three drinks...

the vast majority seem to be uncritically thinking that Buerle, Garcia and Contreras will finish 1-2-3 in Cy Young voting, with Garland and El Duque appearing in the Top 10...

I really don't understand it... maybe its just healthy optimisim... but at the point that any outside opinion is belittled... its really annoying

with the rest for the bullpen to handle which is a good bullpen so we easily win this division. Watch out is all im sayin', this might be the year!!!

idiotAllDAWay

02-19-2005, 12:29 AM

i think we go all da way and beat the cardinals in the world series and the new curse will be the curse of the sox's massacre against cardinals.

idiotAllDAWay

02-19-2005, 12:32 AM

The St.Luis Cardinals Massacre

Tannerfan

02-19-2005, 01:01 AM

Why do people make such a big deal about El Duque's age, but are fine with Rodger Clemens, Kevin Brown, and The Big Unit. Those guys not to mention Curt Schilling are old, but for some reason age is not a factor in the coming season for them, but it is for Hernandez. What gives?
You want to talk about his injury? Fine. But all the media hoo-ha's should stop dis-ing him about age when there are a number of major leaguers older then him.

guillen4life13

02-19-2005, 02:05 AM

Why do people make such a big deal about El Duque's age, but are fine with Rodger Clemens, Kevin Brown, and The Big Unit. Those guys not to mention Curt Schilling are old, but for some reason age is not a factor in the coming season for them, but it is for Hernandez. What gives?
You want to talk about his injury? Fine. But all the media hoo-ha's should stop dis-ing him about age when there are a number of major leaguers older then him.

Personally I'm not fine on Kevin Brown. Duque has been injured a lot lately, and especially since he's this old, injuries have a much more significant effect on one's performance.

idiotAllDAWay

02-19-2005, 04:00 PM

well if el duque goes down we have hermi!

MRKARNO

02-19-2005, 04:26 PM

well if el duque goes down we have hermi!

Or McCarthy depending on when in the season it happens. If it's towards the end it might make more sense to promote him.

CWSGuy406

02-19-2005, 04:54 PM

I don't care about age, I just see a better pitcher in Contreras than Garland, you don't. Fair enough. Garland doesn't have a strikeout pitch, gets hit harder, and blames teammates for unearned runs. Contreras came here because he felt unwanted in New York, strikes out many more batters, is more dominant than Garland, and last year walked himself into trouble, alot. If Contreras cuts down on his walks, we have a great 1-3. What does Garland need to do to improve his game? Get a strikeout pitch, attack the batters more, and stop putting the ball into play so much. You're asking for alot more out of Garland than Contreras, which is why I won't be surprised when Contreras puts up better numbers than Judy this year.

Maybe it's just me, but this quote is kind of funny (I'm just reading this thread now, it's why I'm so late).

And hey -- if I was 6"11 and could shoot a basketball better, I'd be declaring myself NBA eligible next year...

He didn't shut them down!!
7 IP, 7 H, 3 BB's, 2 K's. Johan made one mistake in the first inning and shut down the Sox. 8 IP, 3 H, 2 BB, 12 K's. Garland also had some great defense behind him in that game (Jose turned a great double play.)

Oh man! :roflmao:

santo=dorf

02-19-2005, 05:26 PM

Maybe it's just me, but this quote is kind of funny (I'm just reading this thread now, it's why I'm so late).

And hey -- if I was 6"11 and could shoot a basketball better, I'd be declaring myself NBA eligible next year...

Oh man! :roflmao:

You stalk on me on these boards too? :?:

Contreras is capable on cutting down on his walks, you are not capable of growing to 6' 11 and being able to shoot with the skill of the rest NBA players. He only had 19 walks in 57.2 IP as a starter back in 2003.

Don't you see a major difference between those two stat lines? Who was the more dominating pitcher that day?

HebrewHammer

02-19-2005, 05:57 PM

I think we have the potential to be good and at this point that's all any team really has. There isn't a team in baseball that won't have pitching concerns, even the Mighty Yankmees have a concern or two(Wright's shoulder, RJ's knee, Mussina's ability to suck, Brown's "ability", will the real Carl Pavano please stand up, etc.)

I look forward to a 1-2 punch of Buerhle and Freddy. Contreras scares the hell out of me until he earns my trust. El Duque was the best pitcher the Yankees had down the stretch last year, if we get 25 starts I consider his season a success. Garland will be Garland. I don't think he's going to change and once his salary outpaces his production I won't miss him a bit. He has a 20% chance of turning the corner this year. I'd love to see him succeed and lead the White Sox to postseason glory, but I know chances are he'll be an average starter and lead the White Sox to post season glory.:cool:

idiotAllDAWay

02-19-2005, 06:19 PM

why is every so worried about Contreras we can fix him and he has the capability to be a 20 win pitcher (not sayin' he will) there is no one on this team who worries me.

chisox06

02-19-2005, 06:26 PM

why is every so worried about Contreras we can fix him and he has the capability to be a 20 win pitcher (not sayin' he will) there is no one on this team who worries me.

No one? How long have you been a sox fan? :D:

CWSGuy406

02-19-2005, 07:05 PM

You stalk on me on these boards too? :?:

Contreras is capable on cutting down on his walks, you are not capable of growing to 6' 11 and being able to shoot with the skill of the rest NBA players. He only had 19 walks in 57.2 IP as a starter back in 2003.

Don't you see a major difference between those two stat lines? Who was the more dominating pitcher that day?

I'm not stalking you, santo.

I like you a lot. You're probably the most passionate White Sox fan on both of the boards, and a real smart one at that.

Yes, Contreras is capable of cutting down on walks, but in his career in the majors, he sure hasn't shown that ability yet. 2003 he did alright, but 57.2 IP is an awfully small sample size to judge a pitcher off of. If he does learn to cut down on the walks, God bless him, and God bless the Sox, because like you said, they'll have a real good pitcher on there hands. I just don't see him doing that, but, I'll gladly eat crow if he proves me wrong.

And -- the line I look at is ER/R. Garland gave up one run. Santana gave up two. That day, Garland was the better pitcher. Maybe not fantasy baseball wise, but for what we needed -- Garland was the better pitcher that day.

santo=dorf

02-19-2005, 07:18 PM

I'm not stalking you, santo.

I like you a lot. You're probably the most passionate White Sox fan on both of the boards, and a real smart one at that.

Yes, Contreras is capable of cutting down on walks, but in his career in the majors, he sure hasn't shown that ability yet. 2003 he did alright, but 57.2 IP is an awfully small sample size to judge a pitcher off of. If he does learn to cut down on the walks, God bless him, and God bless the Sox, because like you said, they'll have a real good pitcher on there hands. I just don't see him doing that, but, I'll gladly eat crow if he proves me wrong.

And -- the line I look at is ER/R. Garland gave up one run. Santana gave up two. That day, Garland was the better pitcher. Maybe not fantasy baseball wise, but for what we needed -- Garland was the better pitcher that day.

It's all good. :cool:

9 times out of 10 the more dominating pitcher will win the ballgame. Garland happened to be the 1 out of 10 pitcher on that faithful day in July.